All Episodes
Previous Next
June 18, 2023 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
01:22:44
Edition 732 - Marcus Allen
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Across the UK, across continental North America and around the world on the internet, by webcast and by podcast.
My name is Howard Hughes and this is The Unexplained.
Well, I'm hoping everything is good in your world as I'm recording these words.
It is hot in London.
It is not as hot as it was at the peak of last year, but I think that was July, August.
So at the moment, because I'm quite high up the building and the direct sunlight is coming in, well, what is that?
How are we going to look here?
Well, according to a clock commeasuring device that is on my windowsill, facing all the sunshine, the temperature there is 40 degrees.
Now, it's going to be a little cooler, a few feet, couple of meters indoors, where I'm sitting, not far from that window.
But it's going to be in the 30s Celsius, as I record these words, in a pair of shorts and a t-shirt.
And it's going to be a hot old recording session if we want to dignify it with those words.
Now, thank you very much to Adam, my webmaster.
Thank you very much to you for all of your emails and comments as they come in.
I do get to see them all.
Please follow my Facebook page, the official Facebook page of The Unexplained with Howard Hughes 2.
And thank you very much for all of the new followers of that, because that is the place that you'll get all the information that you need about anything that is going to happen with the TV show or with this podcast.
That is where I will post it first on the Facebook page.
Of course, the website, theunexplained.tv, is the repository of all of those about 750 hours worth of podcasts.
If you started playing them today, you would still be playing them.
I think somebody else will do the math on that.
You'll be playing them in two months from now.
And I'm going to go back to the beginning one of these days if I get time, if I ever get any kind of holiday or break.
I'm going to go back and listen to myself right at the beginning and see how I've changed over the 17 and a half years that we've been doing this.
I may well be surprised.
So might you.
But listen, it's lovely to have you there.
Thank you for the nice things you say.
And please know that if you send me videos and pictures of things that you've experienced, that I'm not an image analyst.
People like Jason Gleaves with UFOs, UAPs, very good at that kind of stuff at youth-only, if he's got the time to do it.
But all I can ever give is just a personal opinion of what I think I'm seeing or not seeing.
I don't have any specialist equipment.
I couldn't afford it.
You know, the only equipment I have is recording equipment.
So I hope you understand that when you send me those things, I can't do a professional analysis, but I'm always interested rather to hear your stories and see those images of things that you've experienced on life's highway, as they say.
Guest on this edition, catch up with Marcus Allen from Nexus Magazine.
A man who, among other things, believed that we didn't go to the moon in 1969, but he's got many other fascinating views, and of course he is the man in the UK behind that amazing magazine, Nexus, that covers so many topics here.
So Marcus never gets enough time on the TV show.
You know, the amount of time available drives me mad on that TV show.
But at the moment, there's nothing I can do about it, but I can control this podcast, even if I can't control the way that that goes out.
I can control the podcast.
So we're going to do an hour or so here and just freeform, really.
Talk about the moon, talk about the UFO UAPSU, talk about the nature of truth these days in an artificial intelligence generated world and if we can fit it in.
Marcus's favorite current subject is the whole subject of ancient Egypt, who built the pyramids and that kind of thing.
So we'll try and get into that too.
But it's just basically a catch-up with an old friend here.
I've known Marcus for 20 years or more.
So Marcus Allen on this edition of The Unexplained.
If you want to get in touch with me, then you can go to my website, theunexplained.tv, follow the link for emails and send me an email from there.
And it's always lovely to know that you are there supporting me all the way.
I'm still clearing up after the fire.
It is a long and slow process because, frankly, I'm not as quick as I used to be when I was like 20.
And, you know, I'm having to do it all.
And, you know, I'm doing it at my pace.
Let's put it that way.
Okay, guest on this edition, Marcus Allen from Nexus Magazine.
A catch up with him.
Marcus, thank you very much for coming back on my show.
Delighted to do it.
And thank you very much for the kind invitation.
Well, Marcus, you and I have known each other for years and it seems to me that this world is changing at a rate of knots.
All sorts of things are making headlines that I didn't think they would make at the pace that they're making them.
I mean, for example, all of this stuff that you must have followed about the revelations of David Grush, man who worked for the American Security Services, the American military, a 14-year veteran of Afghanistan.
And he is the man who is now telling us that we do have off-world technology.
Things have crashed.
Bits of them are being kept.
And, you know, I kind of inclined to say surprise, surprise.
I think many of us may have known that.
And all sorts of other things like people claiming that an alien appeared to them after a crash in Las Vegas.
More information, even as I record this today, is coming out.
Just seems to me that the pace and speed of all of this is very hard for those of us with ordinary brains that came into this world several decades ago, at least, to assimilate.
Yes.
It is, because it goes so much against the accepted norms, the things that people expect to be able to understand, to read about.
It's all turned upside down.
Of course, don't forget there is also at this time going on in Washington at the press club an event where a lot of this information is being debated, discussed, put out, headed by Stephen Greer.
Yes, I was watching an interview with Stephen today.
I'm hoping to get him on the show.
I mean, this man has given an awful lot of time in his life, and I get varying emails around and about Stephen Greer.
Some people absolutely love everything that he's saying, and some people don't.
I recall that I used to listen to him on the old Art Bell shows out of the United States years ago, and I was fascinated.
And it seems to me that a lot of the things that he's controversially been saying over the years, you know, we seem to be heading in that direction.
Now, what he's saying, and your thoughts welcome, you know, on behalf of yourself and Nexus Magazine, really, that we've had technology that is way beyond the technology that we currently have.
We are in possession of this, but we're sitting on a lot of it and it could make our lives better.
And it's time for us to be told a bit of truth before we do ourselves some serious harm.
Now, I listened to him saying that in an interview on YouTube this morning, and I thought, you're making a lot of sense to me.
What do you think?
Oh, I think he's absolutely right.
I think Stephen Greer has access to and the confidence of many people who are, shall we say, deep into this conspiracy, if you like.
It's almost like it's a conspiracy because we don't know about it.
But Stephen Greer is willing to front up to what is going on, discuss it publicly, make it available, and try to move us forward.
Because if it is correct that we are in contact with off-world intelligence, are they here to help us?
Are they here to harm us?
Nobody's yet been able to come up with a definitive answer.
Given how advanced they would appear to be to be able to get here in the first place, you would think that they would be here to help us.
But if we consider them to be an enemy to be combated, to be fought against, they may just withdraw their offer.
Now, there have been stories for, what, 50 years, to my knowledge, of technology recovered from crashed, for want of a better word, UFOs, technology which has been incorporated into warfare.
Now, if these are peaceful people, and there's no reason to believe they're not, because if they have the technologies to get here, they've got the technology to get us out of the way if necessary.
And the reports of the UFOs overflying the missile bases in Montana, North America, disabling nuclear warheads on the top of Minuteman rockets.
If those are correct, then they're trying to help us.
They're saying, look, don't mess with this weapon.
Don't mess with nuclear technology.
It's not going to help you.
Which seems to be the case, because we've got a lot of these stories.
Now, they get dismissed.
Oh, you can't have UFOs flying over a base and disabling nuclear weapons.
So we'll just ignore it.
No, we should talk about it.
We should discuss it and say, if these intelligences, for want of a better word, if these intelligences are here, they are definitely trying to help us.
But if we don't use the technology in a peaceful way, we use it purely for warfare, they're going to say, no, not interested.
Go back to square one, start again, learn how to behave decently.
And I don't want to speak for Stephen Greer, but the question that I've been thinking about all morning and into this afternoon since I watched him today, and I think I've heard him ask this one before, but I'd forgotten it, and it refreshed my memory and made me think again, is if we do, or if there are deep, shadowy elements who have technologies way beyond anything we know, technologies that we may not fully understand and may be harmful to us.
I mean, nuclear power is a technology of that kind.
I mean, we understand it, we think, and it can definitely be harmful to us, and it's amazing that we haven't blown up the whole planet yet with it, because, you know, the potential to do that is there.
But what Stephen was saying is that the aliens might have to step in and assist or prevent us from using things that we don't fully understand and that may be about to do us great harm.
And I find that argument, although 20 years ago, a lot of people wouldn't have understood it, I find that argument today in 2023, Marcus, very compelling.
I think it is.
I think it is.
But it also, assuming that the famous Star Trek idea of the prime directive, you do not interfere, is correct, then they will do what they can, the intelligences will do what they can to prevent us harming ourselves and the planet,
but they won't help us advance because they don't see us using the technology which they have access to, apparently, in a peaceful way, which I think is a commendable approach.
We do have to behave in a responsible human way.
We're quite capable of doing it.
We see with disaster relief activities.
Things happen very, very fast when humans want to help other humans.
But if we're going to use technology to the detriment of other humans, this would be frowned upon at the very least and probably prevented at best by those who have access and can use the technology themselves.
I mean, there's a great argument for intervention, isn't there, really?
Because if there was intervention, then we would suddenly realize all of us, and not just a few people who see things, but en masse, everybody.
We would then realize that we are not alone.
There is a power greater than ours.
They may wield abilities that we cannot comprehend.
And if anything, would bring people together.
Surely that would.
It would.
It reverts to the famous address by then President Reagan in the United Nations about 40 years ago.
If there was an alien threat on Earth, this would unite us.
Well, I hope that is the case, because that is about the only thing that will unite us.
We don't seem to be able to unite ourselves to help and to advance human conditions.
Do you think, does your gut tell you, as many people seem to be saying that we are nearing this thing called disclosure, as we have all of these whistleblowers and one other thing that came Out of the Stephen Greer session, one of the things was that I think there were 40 attorneys at the ready to defend whistleblowers, to represent whistleblowers, not defend them, they haven't done anything wrong, to represent whistleblowers.
It just seems to me that we are edging by tippy toes, inch by inch, centimeter by centimeter, towards something.
The only thing I can't be clear on in my small brain is what the something might be.
Well, if it is disclosure, i.e.
an official announcement that they're here or we know about them, I think that would be a very positive move because it would stop all the questions.
But you then have to go back just slightly and say, if that could happen, who is trying to prevent it?
Because we've got these whistleblowers who are prepared to come forward at probably considerable cost to their careers, their pensions, their future prospects, and make these statements, make these comments that there are technologies, we have been in touch, we do know what's going on.
If these whistleblowers are prepared to say that, why would they be prosecuted?
Why would they need to be defended if what they're saying is the truth?
Because the truth has a habit of being correct.
And that's why we need to be very careful.
And I nearly fell into that trap there as using the word defend, because it seems to me that if you make a statement that you honestly believe to be correct, you don't need to be defended.
You need to be represented.
That's a good distinction.
Very good distinction.
Represented for talking the truth.
Now, there was a statement from the Department of Defense when the David Grush revelations came out.
The statement was made, I think, among others, to the U.S. version of the Sun newspaper.
And out of memory, Pentagon spokesperson Sue Gough said, as far as we are aware at the moment, there is nothing verifiable suggesting that there is back engineering or anything much has crashed.
I mean, that's a very bad way of paraphrasing it, but it more or less says it.
Now, the word to magnify here, the big word is verifiable, because I think verifiable depends on who's doing the verifying and what criteria they are using.
You know, if you use the hardest criteria where you're looking the other way all the time, nothing is verifiable.
If you are a little more open-minded about things, a lot of things may be verifiable.
So I thought that was a very interesting use of words.
That's a good point.
And it comes back to what I said just earlier.
Who is trying to prevent disclosure?
Is it because it can't be verified?
They can't present information in such a way that people will say, oh, I get it.
That's true.
It's almost like they're obfuscating.
They're trying to prevent further information from coming out, which is why they will always say whistleblowers should be prosecuted for revealing sensitive information.
Well, maybe the whistleblowers are revealing information which would be of benefit to us.
So why don't we go down that path rather than saying, oh, you're all wrong, you're all criminals, you're just undermining the security of the state or something like that.
Or indeed, there may be a bigger power game.
But if there is a bigger power game being played, and there might well be, it's interesting that we're even here, okay, that we have these hearings that are happening.
We have people like David Grush, who was permitted to go on the record about this thing.
He made a complaint about harassment and difficulties that had been put in his way when he had given his information to Congress and not everybody got to see that by any manner of means.
And he went public about this.
But as far as I'm aware, he was given approval to do what he's done because he will have signed all kinds of disclaimers and official documents and things that you have to sign that bind you for life.
So on the one hand, we've got all the secrecy and the declaration that everything has to be verifiable.
And then on the other hand, you have the complete dichotomy at the polar opposite of it.
You have this freedom, this new freedom to come forward and be a whistleblower.
And certainly that's another thing the Department of Defense said, the Pentagon said.
We're looking forward to hearing from people.
So on the one hand, the doors are open.
And on the other hand, the doors not quite as open, if you see what I mean.
Oh, indeed.
I think that's a very good distinction.
And it's also one of the main points on this is that maybe the Pentagon don't know what some of the people who are now disclosing information actually know.
Because the Pentagon is a very large organization, many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people in it.
There are probably only a very few who have access to all this information, maybe just a handful.
And they're not talking.
Or maybe some of them are because they're now deciding that it's time to go forward with it.
But the idea that the Pentagon or the Department of Defense or the American state, which comprises millions of people, it's not a small organization, the American state.
Do those people know what's going on in remote areas, in remote laboratories, in, shall we say, within the secrecy that is engendered by this security information?
You know, you're only allowed to discuss things with security people who have been passed at the same level you are.
You can't discuss it with people above them.
And there are many, many levels of security.
So I think there's a great deal of misinformation, which is different from disinformation.
Disinformation is designed to deliberately mislead.
Misinformation is misinterpretation.
There is a difference.
And of course, if you were the possessor of material, say you were part of some deeply secret operation and you had material or technology way in advance and potentially harmful, but way in advance of anything that we know, then you'd be using that to your advantage, wouldn't you?
And you wouldn't be particularly keen for the use of that or the details of how that works to get out.
Exactly.
Information is power in that sense.
Which is maybe the core of everything that has ever been on this subject.
I don't know, but I do have to tell you, and I think maybe it's partly to do with all my years of talking to you, Marcus, Nexus Magazine, that I started this, and you know I started this years ago, from the basis of I've had a training of rigorous balance as a journalist, okay?
That's been what has been absolutely impressed upon me for all my professional life.
And that's how I started it.
And I used to get myself in trouble with a lot of people who would say, you know, God almighty, have you always got to sit on the fence?
Or they'd misinterpret me and they'd say, are you really supporting those people?
How can you believe that?
Now, I've come to the stage, especially when I've looked at, you know, various government actions, not only in this country, but others, I'm ceasing to believe more and more.
Or rather, I'm believing less and less and ceasing to believe more and more.
And I wonder what happens to a society, because I don't think I'm alone.
What happens to a society?
This is a big philosophical question here that does tie into what we've just been discussing.
When more and more people cease to believe what they are being told.
Doesn't matter what it's about, but they cease to believe what they're being told because they think, perhaps rightly, that many officials and politicians have a motive.
That's an excellent point.
It's exactly the situation we're in at the moment.
We're trying to resolve it.
Governments are trying to resolve it.
Organizations are trying to resolve it.
How far do you go?
How much information do you withhold?
How much information do you put out?
There is a big difference between organizations that are commercially competitive with each other, and they will retain information for their commercial advantage.
And that's the way the world works.
That's the way business works.
But when you come to governments, who are, by definition, the servants of the people who employ them, i.e.
the taxpayers who fund them, if you've got this problem with secrecy, with withholding information, I mean, the last three years, I think we have seen this exaggerated to a considerable degree.
There are certain people who say the information that we were given was incorrect.
There are certain people who say the information we were given was the only information we should act upon.
They're two different views.
What has happened now is that people are much more aware of, shall we say, different information, different aspects, different discussions, different opinions from people who would be respected for their opinion because of their academic and career history.
If they are then ignored, shut down, removed from the scene, people will naturally say, what is it he was saying that was so interesting it caused censorship.
So you've got this problem.
It happens in all areas of life, whether it's history, whether it's science, whether it's politics, whether it's the environment.
It doesn't matter what it is.
There are people who have different opinions.
These opinions should be heard.
They may be wrong opinions, but that's all they are.
They're opinions.
They're somebody's particular view of that subject at that time based on their previous knowledge of it.
Well, no, that's a very interesting thing.
And this all comes down to the level of control that we have in society.
Okay, if some opinions are manifestly harmful in whatever field, we're not talking about anything specific, but if they are manifestly harmful and provably wrong, then maybe they should be controlled.
Well, yes, they should be controlled because people are going to hurt themselves and do themselves damage.
But if they have a contrary view and it's not going to hurt anybody, then just as things were when I was a kid, you would hear all kinds of things debated on television when I was a kid.
And now we do less of that.
I mean, this conversation is not necessarily about that, but that is about the nature of debate, I think, and whether people are allowed freedom of expression and whether we're constantly checking ourselves.
And that's not to say before anybody emails me and says, are you saying that people should be allowed to say whatever they like, no matter how disgusting, outrageous, or harmful?
No, absolutely.
That's what we've got laws for.
And if people contravene the laws that will have been duly agreed and sanctioned by parliaments and politicians and hopefully people we might be able to trust one day, then that's the nature of this issue.
But beyond that, within the rule of law, then people should be free to express themselves.
And I'm not entirely sure.
And I think one of the problems is, and let's come to this, is the technological society in which we live.
I don't know, this is something I think that you've touched on in Nexus magazine, haven't you?
You've done AI and those things.
Yeah, we do.
Yeah.
Done that quite recently.
So our technological society gives everybody an equal voice.
But it gives everybody a voice.
That's great.
But it gives everybody an equal voice.
You know, if you're loud and proud and you produce nice videos, then you're just as viewable.
Whether you're saying appalling things, you're just as viewable as you are if you're saying things that go along with the status quo.
If you know what I'm saying.
And I'm all for the technology.
We cannot go back now.
We shouldn't go back now.
And it's good that people who in the past had to be quiet, you know, it's good that people have access to this technology.
But I wonder, especially when I look at AI and the developments in it, how far this can go.
We'll find out, won't we?
We will find out.
You know, I mean, there is a possibility that your magazine could become automatic.
My podcast could become automatic because I'm sure there's bound to probably a computer available now that's cleverer than me.
It wouldn't have to try very hard.
So, you know, you just put the voice into it or a voice into it and off you go.
I'm not sure where all of that goes.
No, and I'm not sure that it'll actually go very far forward either.
But the only examples I've seen of AI being used to answer questions, it appears to just scan the internet and produce necessary responses to the question asked.
I mean, there's one particular question which involved conspiracy theories, and I thought, oh, that's interesting.
I'll have a look at that.
This was AI's response to a question about conspiracy theories.
And I recognized from the response where it came from.
It was a post by a psychologist who was investigating conspiracy theories.
And her particular view of it was fairly straightforward.
You can understand what she's talking about.
But then AI reproduces her response to a question about conspiracy theories.
And I thought, well, that's all they've done.
They just use Google to come up with the answer and presented it in a, shall we say, the Turing test way of, well, it's a human replying.
That was Alan Turing's question about how do you determine the difference between a computer and a human.
If you can tell from the response that it's a human as opposed to a computer, then you're dealing with a human.
Now, whether that's the correct answer, whether that's in this particular instance, whether that was the correct answer, but that's been my view right from the beginning.
If AI is just there to reproduce information from where it can find it.
To cut and paste.
Yeah, basically, that's it.
It's cut and paste.
And it's presented in a way that would appear to be a human response because of the way in which it used it.
But that's just the language it uses.
It doesn't mean to say the information is necessarily correct.
Like many people you've probably interviewed, you can ask them a question and they can answer in a way that somebody else wouldn't answer that particular question in that particular way.
They say you can tell there's a difference.
Some of it is about the platform, though.
You know, the authority with which the information is given up.
And I haven't really given a lot of thought to this until one of my listeners, Carl, put in a request for my biography using artificial intelligence, using one of the new methods of doing that.
Okay, we know which one it will be, I think.
But he put this in and it came out with a beautifully written biography for me.
The only problem is that more than 50% of it was completely wrong, but it looked absolutely authoritative.
It said that I was born in Manchester.
I wasn't.
It said that I worked for BBC Radio Merseyside in Liverpool.
I never did.
It said that I did the late show on BBC Radio Merseyside in Liverpool, which I absolutely never did, and I'm sure they'd never ask me.
That was one of two among a smorgasbord of incorrect material.
I have no idea where it was gleaned from, but most of it, more than 50% of it, was wrong.
Now, I don't know whether I should be feeling relieved about that or extremely worried.
I'm tending towards the extremely worried because if AI is delivering us answers that look that credible but are wrong, we've got a problem.
Yeah, no, that's excellent.
That's exactly where we're at.
Because how do we know that AI has got anything right?
I mean, that is a very good example you've shown there of somebody who requested your biography, of which 50% was incorrect.
It's almost like it's deliberate.
It's trying to test you.
But where's the source material?
That's the thing.
I mean, I'm taking the person who gathered this, I'm taking it all on the best of faith.
Those pieces of information looked absolutely authoritative.
He worked at BBC Radio Mersey side.
Oh, no, I didn't.
In fact, I worked at the commercial station and I was a news person there.
That was how I started my career.
But the idea of working for BBC Radio Mersey side, that would never have occurred to me when I was a kid.
And I'm certain that they wouldn't have wanted me.
And, you know, I wish them all the very best in every endeavor.
I've heard many good programs on Radio Mersey side, but, you know, they wouldn't have wanted me, and I wouldn't have wanted them, I think.
And yet there we have my biography saying that that's what I did and that's where I was.
And the danger of that is that it might be published widely and people who don't know you will believe it.
Now, that's not harmful, really.
It hasn't done me any harm.
It's a little disturbing, but that's all it is.
But just imagine when you get to really serious things and you have that level of inaccuracy.
Exactly.
I mean, that was the point I was making earlier about how do we know it's information that's correct?
Where has it come from?
Has it been checked?
Has it been verified?
And obviously, in this case, it hadn't.
But if we then accept that what AI is doing is 100% correct all the time about everything, we have a serious problem if we're going to rely on AI in any way, shape or form in the future.
We can't allow that without the confirmation that is required and the verification that is required.
How do you verify, though?
That's the problem.
How do you do that?
It's normal journalistic practice to verify your sources, to verify the information you're about to publish or broadcast.
In other words, in the trivial example of my biography, ask me, just ask me, email me through the website, ask me a question.
Did you work for the BBC?
Were you born in Manchester?
I wasn't too far away, 40 miles away, but Liverpool and Manchester, as people who live in both of those fine cities, are totally different.
And, you know, I wasn't born in Manchester.
You know, I have a lot of time for Manchester, but Liverpool's my city.
End of story.
So there we are with that.
And I just wonder whether the genie is out of the bottle and the horse has bolted the stable and the door has been closed behind it and any other analogy you'd like to come up with.
And as much as politicians are saying, well, we need to have a framework of law and we certainly need to have a working party and think about how we're going to deal with this, actually, it's too late.
That's the Yes Minister response, isn't it?
Any problems?
Create an inquiry.
Call a board of investigation.
Remember that great series, Yes Minister and Yes Peter?
I do.
And for those of my listeners listening in America or other countries, it was a very, very accurate comedy about a government minister and the kind of knots that he got tied up in, played by Paul Eddington.
And he later became, I think, through this, I remember learning it at uni years ago, the Peter's principle of incompetence.
The more incompetent you are, the further up the chain you get promoted.
Goes the Peter's principle of incompetence.
But anyway, I'm not sure whether he was incompetent, but he wasn't the most competent of ministers.
But he ended up as Prime Minister.
It became yes, prime minister.
And the series was so accurate that the prime minister of the day, one Margaret Thatcher, was a massive fan of the show and went to see it recorded.
Yeah, and took part in one episode, I believe.
But the answer, yes, she did.
The answer to any knotty question that you don't understand is, let's hold an inquiry.
And that's called kicking the can down the road because politicians are on five-year in this country electoral cyclos.
So by the time you've had an inquiry, at least five years are going to have elapsed and a lot of people will have forgotten.
The fire will have gone out of the issue and you won't have to deal with it, most importantly.
That's the thing.
That's the whole point of calling an inquiry, so you don't have to deal with it.
It is, God help all of us.
Going to the moon, Marcus, you and I have discussed this.
I saw you on a very good, I think you were on, it was ancient aliens, I think you contributed to about this.
You've never believed, and I've looked you in the eye in studios before and asked you, are you sure about this, Marcus?
You've never believed that we went to the moon, have you?
That's correct.
No human has ever landed, walked across, and returned from the moon.
There you go.
Why?
You know, again, here come those emails, and Marcus will give you his email address at the end of this.
You can contact him via Nexus Magazine.
There are a lot of people who agree with you, and many people who certainly don't.
I remember raising that question on air, on the radio, on the 50th anniversary of the 1969 landing, and a lot of people castigated me for being insensitive enough to raise that question on that important anniversary.
Now, I think we did.
But, you know, that's just because I was brought up in a generation where I had so much of the information presented to me and Moonrocks did tours of school and all the rest of it.
Why do you think then if we didn't, we have been successful in perpetuating a lie?
You know, if we really, accepting for a moment that we didn't go to the moon, which is what you say, how could we have kept that going for 50 odd years?
Good point.
It's a question I get asked quite frequently.
It's the weight of expectation of those who agree that man has landed on the moon.
Anybody who then comes along and says, nah, it didn't happen, is going to be ostracized, removed from society, thrown into the pit of despair by their overwhelming conviction that they are correct.
Now, if somebody challenges me, I only have one question.
Show me the evidence.
Where is it?
And they'll say, oh, we've seen it on television.
They will also say to me that these days, you know, some people with their own domestic telescopes can point at the landing sites and take a look at it from Earth.
Well, they'll say it, but that's not correct.
You can't point any telescope based on Earth, including the Hubble Space Telescope when it was active in Earth orbit.
You can't point it at the moon and see any of the landing sites.
You can see where they would be, because if you've got a big enough picture of the moon, you can say, well, that's where they supposedly landed.
But you can't see anything there.
There have been photographs produced recently from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in 2009, which allegedly showed the landing sites.
But you can't point a telescope from anywhere on Earth at the moon and see a landing site.
They're not powerful enough, or they don't have the resolution to be able to define something as small as a pickup truck, which is what the lunar lander would look like if it was there.
Something the size of a pickup truck on the moon.
I mean, the moon is 240,000 miles away.
It's quite a long way away.
It is.
You know, visible though it may be from Earth.
Just to jump in here, though, while you were talking, I've called up on Google a page from 2011 from NASA.
And I'm looking at one of the landing sites, but more interestingly, I'm looking at the footpath of the traverses of the astronauts when they were up there, the actual trails.
If people on the moon didn't create those, what did?
Photoshop.
You're kidding.
Sorry.
Photoshop can do it.
2011, by the way, is two years after the photographs were supposedly taken of the landing sites, which was 2009.
Now, the photographs that have been released showing the landing sites, and as you say, the tracks of the astronauts in the lunar regolith, the soil on the moon, and the tracks of the lunar rover on some of the later missions, 15, 16, and 17, they had a lunar rover, so they laid tracks.
Those can easily be created through Photoshop.
That's not difficult.
Any decent technician using Photoshop could do that if required.
We've seen that.
And presumably before the era of Photoshop, before the era of widespread use of computers, you would say that there would be ways of doing that in an analog way.
not necessarily in an analog way which is why we haven't seen anything prior to 2011 because analog is is that The original photographs on the moon were taken with Hasselblad cameras using photographic film.
They weren't digital images.
They were scanned to put on the internet.
They were scanned.
They became digital images then.
But when they were originally taken, they were photographic film, which is developed, processed, as normal.
There's no special equipment.
And looking at those original photographs, which do exist, all the photographs taken on the Apollo missions are online, so one can see them.
But the idea that you can see images of the astronauts' footprints is just incorrect.
They weren't showing images of the, they were showing the tracks that the astronauts supposedly took.
But those could easily be recreated by seeing what the storyboard showed.
I use the word storyboard advisedly because I think that is what all the images were based on.
A storyboard backed up by a narrative that humans had landed on the moon.
And if you're going to land humans on the moon, you need to have them do certain things.
Those certain things were laid out, and you can read most of it in the Apollo press packs issued for each mission.
I have the Apollo 11 press pack, and it shows in considerable detail, time down to the nearest second in some cases, what was going to happen before they'd even launched, because the press pack was issued prior to the launch of Apollo 11 on July the 16th, 1969.
So they knew what was going to happen.
How did they know what was going to happen?
How do you know, if you go to a place you've never been to before, how do you know what you're going to find when you get there?
How do you know?
And they actually detailed the interior of certain rocks which were to be split open.
How did they know that?
Well, presumably previous photographic and other surveys.
Well, there were certainly previous photographic surveys of the moon because they were looking for places to land.
That's the Lunar Orbiter, 1966.
That took photographs of the lunar surface using photographic cameras, using films.
So you think that that did go to the moon?
Oh, yes, unmanned craft have certainly been to the moon.
That's not a problem.
So why would they look for landing sites if they knew that they couldn't and wouldn't be landing there?
Well, because at the time, 1966, they genuinely believed that they could land there.
They hadn't realized what all the problems were.
So they discovered that there was a raft of problems?
Yes.
And they were so committed to it by that point that they had to stick to the story.
Yes, because it has become a political story at this point.
It wasn't a scientific endeavor in the first place.
It was always a political one.
Don't forget it was President John Kennedy in May 1961 who made his famous statement.
We're going to send man to the moon, return him safely to the earth.
That was May 1961.
That was the point at which only one American had been into space.
That was Alan Shepard.
And he'd only gone up 100 miles and come down again.
He didn't know he could do it.
Nobody knew they could do it.
Nobody knew what was required.
So from 1961 through to 1969, they had to invent all the equipment, the allies that have, as President Kennedy said in a later speech, allies that have yet to be invented, which were used in the engines of the Saturn V rocket, it's called Saturn V because it had five engines.
The engines were such that they were so powerful, we're told, they could produce 1.5 million pounds of thrust, that's 600 tons of thrust each, to get the thing off the ground.
We've seen the size of the current rockets, the SLS rocket carrying the Orion capsule back to the moon December last year, Elon Musk's spaceship, which got blown up four minutes after launch because it had gone off course.
These are big rockets, very, very big rockets.
Why bother spending all that money in 2023 if we know that, I mean, presumably you would say because of radiation and those sorts of things, we can't go there.
Why stick to this now then?
Because they have to maintain the fiction that they've been in the first place.
This is, don't forget, a return to the moon.
Well, if they never went there in the first place, it's hardly a return.
It's the first attempt to do it.
And I think SpaceX and the Space Launch System are finding how difficult it actually is to get humans, not unman craft, but humans into space beyond the protection of the Earth's magnetosphere.
They're known as the Van Allen radiation belts.
They protect Earth from the radiation of space.
Once you get past them 20,000 miles out, 25,000 miles out, you're in space.
You're exposed to all the difficulties, the problems for humans, not for equipment that can be protected.
But humans, though they could be protected, were not protected.
I mean, I've actually asked NASA, I said, what protection was offered to the astronauts walking on the lunar surface from the dangers of radiation?
They didn't reply.
I didn't expect them to, so I was quite right.
Well, I guess they get an awful lot of questions of that nature, and, you know, maybe, I don't know, I'm not going to answer for them.
They need to answer for themselves.
So let's get this right.
You say that we didn't do it in 1969 because we couldn't, and we knew that we couldn't.
Are you saying that those who are planning to do it now are actually planning to do it for real, but they're realizing that the difficulties, just as was realized all those years ago, ultimately they'll realize the difficulties are too great.
And do you think that some kind of similar thing will be perpetrated then?
It's an interesting point.
No, I don't think it will be.
I think they will finally come up front and say, getting to the moon with humans is a very, very difficult thing to do.
We don't yet have the technology to protect humans in that environment.
They've actually said as much.
Not in so many words, but they've said that protecting humans in space is a priority for NASA.
They've also said that getting power sources, getting rockets powerful enough to get there, is also very difficult, which I think they're finding out.
Because the SLS rocket is basically a development of the space shuttle.
It's one main fuel tank and two solid fuel boosters on the side.
Yes, a rocket can be powerful enough to escape the effect of Earth's gravity.
It's called escape velocity.
It means the rocket has to be traveling at 25,000 miles an hour before it can get itself out of the effect of Earth's gravity, before it reaches lunar gravity.
Other rockets can be created that will do that with much less payload.
That is the difference.
All the unmanned satellites, all the unmanned craft going to the moon, the Chinese have recently done it.
They've placed an unmanned craft, placed a robot on the far side of the moon.
By the way, it's never called the dark.
It shouldn't be called the dark side.
That's the Pink Floyd record.
It's the far side.
And a number of emailers over the years have pointed my error on that point out.
So it is indeed.
The Chinese want to go back to the moon in 2030, though.
They say they're going.
Yes, they do.
And they may well get there because they have considerable number of scientists working on it.
Now, I happen to have a friend who works at the Chinese Space Agency.
And he said quite unequivocally that nobody in China believes that America landed on the moon.
Nobody.
It even taught in their universities it didn't happen.
And then we have the recent revelation from the retired head of Roscosmos, that's the Russian space agency, saying when I was head of the agency, or just before, I was trying to find out, find evidence for America landing on the moon.
Nobody could show me any.
The only person who did come up with it was an astronaut, Alexei Leonov, who co-wrote a book with David Scott called Two Sides of the Moon.
And he told me that they had landed there.
That's the only evidence he could find, that a Russian cosmonaut, in discussion with an American astronaut, had said that they had landed there, therefore it was true.
No, it doesn't mean to say that's true at all.
Where's the evidence?
Why, when there was a Cold War on, and there's another Cold War on now of a different kind, but when there was a Cold War on between ourselves and the Russians, the Russians had a lot of technology.
They had an abortive moon program themselves.
They didn't quite get to the level of technology of America.
They gave up on it in the end.
But they had the ability to monitor.
They could listen.
They could see.
If they had seen that this did not happen in the way that it was described, why did they not, and I have probably put this question to you before, I have put it to other people who say these things, but why did the Russians not out, if you say this did not happen, out those who perpetrated the fraud?
Okay, good point.
Good question, because it's an obvious question.
Because if the Russians had the technology to get to the moon and they saw the Americans trying to do the same thing and succeeding, but it wasn't true, why didn't the Russians say, hey, come on, you're lying?
Okay, here's the comeback on that, is who in Russia would have been able to have enough clout to be able to go to the Presidium of the Soviet Union, i.e.
that's the president at that time or the general secretary of the Communist Party in Russia, at the time Lenard Brezhnev, and say to him, the Americans are lying, you should call them out on it.
Brezhnev would have said, well, show me the evidence for it.
But if they didn't have the evidence, it's always said the Russians tracked the Americans to the moon.
No, they didn't.
They were tracking their own craft.
They had, at the time of Apollo 11, the Russians had an unmanned craft going to the moon at the same time.
The Americans were particularly concerned that they would interfere with each other.
And so the Russians gave them the coordinates of the flight, gave them the direction, the timing of the flight, all the information they would need to be able to ensure there was no accident.
So the Russians were cooperating with the Americans.
They always have been.
There's no dispute about that.
The Russians and the Americans cooperated right through the space program, right through the Cold War.
Remember the Apollo-Soyuz link-up in 1975.
That required a lot of cooperation.
I was on this earth then, literally.
I can't remember the name of that.
What was that called?
It had a special name, didn't it?
It wasn't Concorde, but it was something of that warm and friendly style.
It was just called the Apollo-Sawyers link up.
Okay.
And then, of course, we have had and still have the International Space Station at the moment, where the two have actively cooperated.
And, you know, American astronauts, Canadian astronauts, British astronauts have had to learn Russian as part of the training.
That's right.
Yeah.
And that's been in operation for a long time.
And for many years, the only way for any astronaut of any nation could get there was on a Russian Soyuz rocket.
Yes, yes, yes, we forget that.
Okay, so here we are in 2023.
America says with Artemis, it's going back.
They're making plans to generate power there, use whatever resources there might be to help them breathe, help them live.
Do you think that we may be able to overcome the difficulties this time?
But if we do it, it will be the first time.
Am I misrepresenting you there?
No, no, that's correct.
I would say returning to the moon is a misdirection.
It's misinformation.
It implies that we've been there before.
If we haven't been there before, and we're now finding out for the first time what is involved in getting humans to the moon, I'm not talking about unmancraft, I'm not talking about satellites, I'm not talking about rovers, robots, I'm talking about humans, us delicate little creatures who find working in a radiation environment particularly distressing unless we're protected from it.
And also, there's one other aspect of space travel, which is not usually addressed because it's not been discussed so much, and that is the vacuum of space.
In space, there's nothing there.
It's a vacuum.
On Earth, here on the ground, we live under atmospheric pressure of 14.7 pounds per square inch, which is quite a lot.
It's several tons per square metre.
But we don't notice it because there's as much pressure inside us pushing out as there is outside us pushing in.
So it balances, and we're not even aware of it.
But if you're driving along in your car at 60 miles an hour, you stick a hand out the window, you'll feel the atmosphere.
In space, there is no atmosphere, obviously.
In space, there is no pressure.
It's a vacuum.
But that vacuum, is created by the lack of matter in space.
If there's no matter in space, right, there could be particles of the atmosphere drifting off, which happens quite regularly, because don't forget hot air rises, the atmosphere is going up, and eventually it will get to space and disappear off into space.
But it progressively, it gets progressively weaker.
There's less of it.
So when you go into space and you encounter the vacuum, and the reason that this has not been discussed is because for many years it was classified that equipment in space is affected by the vacuum.
Particularly, photographic film is affected by a vacuum.
I only discovered this 2018 when I attended a talk given in London, the British Interplanetary Society, of which I'm a member, by the developer of the camera system used on the Hexagon spy satellite, the KH9, Keyhole 9.
Hexagon spy satellite was the answer to Russia shooting down Gary Powers and becoming a bit belligerent about America overflying Russia.
The U-2 spy plane pilot.
Yeah, the U-2 spy plane in 1960 that got shot down.
So they eventually decided to launch satellites to circle the Earth and to photograph what was going on on the ground in Russia.
Russia's a big place, so they had to get a satellite that could go into polar orbit and orbit the Earth, and every hour and a half it would be over the same point on the Earth, and it could photograph what it wanted to.
And nobody could do anything about it because it was too high up.
The guy who developed the camera system on the hexagon spy satellite, his name was Phil Pressel, lovely man, I spoke to him and he said, explained exactly what he had to do to develop the camera system.
It was a very complex and very detailed, very advanced camera system that was used on the hexagon spy satellite because they had to carry all their film up.
Notice the word film, they had to carry all the film with them.
Pass it through the camera, pass it through to what was called buckets, and then it was dropped down to Earth.
Dropped to Earth?
Incredible.
It actually happened.
The buckets were on parachutes, and they were caught by planes using what was referred to as a fishing net behind them over Hawaii.
Extraordinary.
That's for real.
There's film of it happening, there's photographs of it happening.
Anyway.
That's rather like, just to digress, the old 1960s trains.
And I think until the 80s, I think, or thereabouts, the way that they used to collect the mailbags, didn't they, from express trains in the UK, the mail was either picked up or dropped off into nets at high speed.
Sounds like the same kind of thing.
Yeah, exactly the same sort of thing.
Yeah, that's a very good analogy.
Yeah, Royal Mail did operate trains.
They did sort the mail on the trains.
And as they sorted it for the towns they were passing through, be wrapped in a big tough old canvas bag and dropped it, well, not dropped off.
It would be caught by this net at the side of the rail.
Astonishing system.
Incredible.
Seeing film of that thing.
But how does this tie into the vacuum then?
Okay.
So Phil was explaining about the camera, which is very detailed.
He's very proud of it and quite rightly true.
And he then said, almost in an offhand way, of course, we had to ensure that the film was pressurized.
I thought, what's he talking about?
Film pressurized?
You don't need to pressurize film.
It was to do with the vacuum of space.
Because in space, because there is a vacuum, if you put any object, such as photographic film, which starts life as a liquid, the emulsion starts life as a liquid, coated onto plastic backing, dried, rolled up into film.
If you put something like that into space without any protection, it will...
It will outgas or it will cold weld.
Outgassing is...
At a certain point, the water will start to what looks like boil.
And that's called outgassing.
That is what all material does in a vacuum because there's nothing to hold it in.
There's no pressure.
Hence, Phil had to say we had to apply a small amount of pressure to the tubes and the container in which the camera equipment was situated.
And he showed us the nitrogen gas bottles which provided the pressure.
Not a lot, by one pound per square inch.
That was all it needed.
But there was pressure because it couldn't withstand the problem of the vacuum in space.
But everything, isn't everything pressurized in space?
Isn't the International Space Station pressurized?
You know, the spacesuits pressurized?
Of course they are, because otherwise humans wouldn't be able to survive.
So the vacuum's not a problem then, is it?
But you have to do it.
You have to provide.
If you're using inanimate objects like photographic film, you still have to pressurize them.
So you have to ensure that there are tubes, which the way Phil showed us the tubes that were installed.
The film was carried in these tubes into the camera.
There's 30 miles of film on this thing.
There's a lot of film that required protecting.
So the film had to be, because it's a chemical reaction, had to be protected in that way.
And so are you telling me that a lot of things simply wouldn't have worked in space for that reason?
And that is a problem that still exists.
And that is one of the technical challenges that if we are going to do it this time, still have to be fully overcome?
Exactly.
That's exactly the problem that people are facing.
There have been a lot of countries sending satellites to the moon, sending rovers to the moon.
The Chinese have done it.
The Indians tried it.
The Israelis have tried it, both of whom failed.
It's interesting.
I was being interviewed on Israeli television about this whole thing at the time of the Beresheet craft, that's the Israeli craft, was on its way to the moon.
It had just crashed.
And they said it had crashed for, I think it was the rocket directing it had malfunctioned.
Some plausible excuse that was given.
And I said to the interviewer at the time, I said, do you think it could be that the engine mounts on the Beresheet craft, which were 3D printed, which is a reasonable thing to do, 3D print components that don't appear to be structurally relevant?
Do you think those 3D printed structural supports for the engine were not tested in a vacuum?
And they failed because it could well have happened.
They said, I don't know, it's a point.
I'll put it to the space agency.
I didn't get a reply, so I don't know.
Interesting.
So do you think then, just bringing this to the point, that as we get closer and closer to various deadlines, not only for America, but other countries wanting to go to the moon, we are going to hear stories of delays and setbacks?
We are.
We're already hearing that.
There have been suggestions that the next launch of the Artemis program, which is the SLS-Orion combo, Orion is the craft in which they will travel.
That's just a bigger version of the Apollo command module, on top of the SLS rocket.
We're already hearing, oh, we might have to push it back a few months.
So we're starting to hear the delays, because obviously there is research going on into how to get humans back to the moon.
Obviously, there's a lot of research.
There are people around now.
There's probably nobody working at NASA now who was working at NASA during the 60s.
They've all retired or died or moved on.
Some of them have gone and been employed by SpaceX.
Anyway, if there's nobody there now who knew what happened then, how do they know there's a problem?
Because they're having to answer the questions being put by a lot of scientists.
Well, how are you going to protect the astronauts outside the protection of the Earth's magnetosphere, which is 200 miles up, 300 or 400 miles up?
That's the furthest humans have actually been, verifiably been, 400 miles up.
And there's a famous point that was asked of Al Bean, who was a lunar module pilot on Apollo 12.
He was being interviewed by Bart Sobrell, who said, did you have any effect when you went through the Van Allen radiation belts?
Assuming he knew where they were, if he'd been through them.
And Al Bean said, no, I don't think we went far enough out to go through them.
But don't they ebb and flow?
They, yes, Up to a point they do, but they're maintained in place by the Earth's magnetic field, which doesn't really ebb and flow that much.
There are two or possibly three radiation belts.
There's the inner belt, about six, seven hundred miles up, going out to about five thousand miles.
Then there's a gap where some people will say that there is a third belt before the outer belts start at about 10,000 miles, going out to about 25,000 miles.
So you've got these two belts, one of which protects Earth against protons, one against electrons.
Because the sun is a very active emitter of radiation.
That's why we can see things.
It's called visible light.
That's radiation.
That comes from the sun.
So do a lot of other things, like ultraviolet light, like infrared, like gamma rays, X-rays.
These things humans don't particularly welcome, which is why we are protected on Earth.
It's a beautifully designed system.
Whoever designed it got it right, got it right first time.
Let's not get into that designing stuff.
But on here on Earth, on planet Earth, on the surface of planet Earth, we can survive quite comfortably as long as we don't spend too long out in the sunshine.
We get sunburned because that damages our skin.
Radiation does that to other things.
You may recall about 30, 40 years ago, there was a major blackout in North America.
And that was caused by basically a coronal mass ejection.
It was short-circuited, a loss of the power supplies.
If you go back 150-odd years to 1859, you have something called the Carrington event, named after Richard Carrington, who first identified the cause of it, which was major electrical storms on the sun, because he happened to be interested in sunspots.
And he said there was a very, very, very large sunspot around the time that we were hit by a coronal mass ejection, which is matter from the sun.
So we've got all these things that are causing problems.
If you're going beyond the protection of the Earth's magnetosphere, i.e.
beyond the vanilla and radiation belts, you're going to have to protect humans.
Protecting unmanned craft is not a problem.
They can be what's called hardened.
Components can be protected individually, usually with gold or with increased lead protection.
I visited a satellite manufacturing plant and asked them about this.
They said, oh yeah, we just put lead in it.
We protect all the, because lead is such a dense material, it protects against radiation, as does uranium, as does water.
But water is heavy, so is uranium, so is lead, so it's not easy to use in large quantities to protect humans if they're actually going to be flying to the moon, because you've got to have other protection.
And that is something which doesn't appear to be discussed in any great detail.
So you think that is one of the things that we are going to encounter?
Oh, we're definitely encountering.
Because this is the first time that we're doing it properly.
And the last time you say that we did it, we didn't do it.
I say we didn't do it.
Not just because of radiation, but because of vacuum.
Vacuum has a serious effect on humans.
So the way that we can park this conversation about this is that an awful lot of work is being done right now, not only by America, but by the Chinese and others, to try and overcome those things so that this time we can do it for real.
I mean, that's astonishing, Marcus.
Well, absolutely astonishing.
And if we start hearing those announcements of big delays, then that would add fuel to your fire, I think.
Well, we do seem to be getting delays, continuous delays, for reasons which are not scientifically provable.
Just, oh, there'd been a delay.
We've had this.
I mean, look at the launch of the SLS rocket.
This was a return to the moon, December last year, December 2022.
There were four delays.
Two because they couldn't get the hydrogen fuel in.
You'd think they'd have worked that out by now, but no.
They had leaks.
They had to replace some of the pipes, some of the volumes.
Which they sorted out, and there were weather-related delays, I think, weren't there?
Yes, there were two weather-related delays.
There was an approaching hurricane.
There were electrical storms, which are not very good for rockets.
So, yes, there were understandable delays.
Let's put it that way.
So you would say, just to conclude this, then, that we need to be watching very carefully what happens over the next five to ten years with this.
Exactly.
Let's have a look at the research into those two areas.
Okay.
Radiation protection of humans and vacuum protection of equipment.
Okay, radiation protection, which has been talked about before, the vacuum protection is something I think that has come up in our conversations before, but maybe not for a long time because it's not as prominent in my mind.
If any of my listeners want to email you with points that they would like to make, can they reach you at Nexus Magazine?
Yes, go to nexusmagazine.com and press the contacts button and you can send an email that will reach me.
And you're happy for that?
Absolutely.
There are going to be people agreeing with every word that you say, and you know that there will be people who won't be.
That is the nature, I think, of being a living, breathing human.
You and I have never talked, and just in these last minutes here, about ancient Egypt, and it's a big interest for you, isn't it?
And I am fascinated by the pyramids, who built them, how did they do it, what did it all mean?
What technology did they have?
Is there anything from your interest in that?
And maybe we can have another conversation about that at greater length, that you'd like to tease me with?
Okay.
Yeah, thanks for that.
It is a personal interest of mine, ancient Egypt, how it was all done.
How did they cut, carve, and carry all those wonderful statues that we know exist because we see them in museums?
And I think it's nice seeing them.
I've been to the Cairo Museum, I've been to the British Museum, I've been to the Petrie Museum in London.
I've seen all the artefacts which have been assembled over the past 150, 200 years from activity in Egypt.
And I always asked one question.
How did they do it?
How did they carve those statues?
How did they create the pyramids?
How were they built?
And if you ask engineers today, the tour of Egypt I went on, we went with David Hatcher Childress, Duncan Rhodes from Nexus, and many other people who were as fascinated in the subject as we all were.
We're all fascinated by it.
We all wanted to get answers.
John Anthony West was the main person who was there.
So we were able to ask him because he's one of the great researchers of ancient Europe.
He's sadly passed away, but his legacy lives on in what he's done.
And I always ask the question, how did they do it?
How did they move these 100-ton blocks of granite?
Because some of the engineering feats we can't even replicate today, I believe.
That's correct.
How do you lift a 60-ton block of granite 200 feet into the air and 200 feet from the base of the Great Pyramid?
Because the 45 blocks of granite are what exists above the king's chamber in the Great Pyramid.
There's 45 of them, 60 tons each.
How did they get them up there?
Oh, they pulled them up ramps with slaves.
No, they didn't.
Well, it's a tomb for a burial place for a revered pharaoh.
No, it's not.
Nobody was ever found in the pyramid or any pyramid come to that, except those that have been placed there later.
It's a grain store.
Well, possibly, but it's not very big.
It's an energy generation device, they say.
It could be.
That's more plausible than all the other explanations.
I mean, that's quite, as far as I understand, a recent theory, isn't it, that the whole thing could be one big battery?
Yeah, one big battery or one big generation using the Earth's facilities, the Schumann resonance, which exists, named after, I think, Hermann Schumann, who identified it, is the frequency at which the Earth vibrates.
So you've got vibration going on, you've got frequency going on.
And as Nikola Tesla said, when you understand frequency, vibration, and certain, you will understand the Great Pyramid.
So the big truth here may be, and I've said this here before, but I don't know whether I understand it anymore.
I don't think I do.
But the big truth may be that we tend to think that we are the coolest kids in class and that we have access to the most advanced technology.
Actually, somebody before us may have been able to do things better.
And we, if we want to advance our knowledge, need to get finding out why.
Exactly.
Good point.
Yes, we do think we're the brightest kids in the class because we've got all these wonderful things like nuclear bombs and stripy toothpaste.
We've got that, but we can't build a pyramid.
But they did it thousands of years ago.
I'm not going to say 5,000 years ago because I don't know how old the pyramid is.
I think we've been changing our ideas on all of that for the last few decades.
This is a fascinating area that we need to go into again because I can see, because I can actually see you as we record this, that you love all of this, and so do I. Marcus is waving to all of us now.
Rather like our dear departed queen, she used to wave in a particular way.
I think you've just given me a royal wave, Marcus, and we're very grateful to you.
And the thumbs up.
And the thumbs up.
That's great.
I love speaking with you because why?
You make me think.
And I think we're a poorer place if we don't have people and things that make us think.
Because sometimes if we rethink our ideas, we might actually have to change them.
Yeah, no harm in that.
If people want to access Nexus Magazine, I know you're fully online and fully connected.
How do they do that?
Just go to nexusmagazine.com and you can see all the information about Nexus, how to subscribe to it, how to order back numbers, how to get some of the DVDs we put out, some of the books that we sell appropriate to Nexus subjects.
That's the place to go.
NexusMagazine.com.
And I have to say, I love Nexus Magazine.
You may not agree with every word that's written in there, but you will see topics discussed that need to be discussed.
You will learn things that you may not have been aware of, and it will stretch your brain in ways that a lot of the popular media simply do not.
Yes.
Correct.
I'm with you on that one.
They're about...
How many editions?
We've had over 200 editions of Nexus, so you've got a lot of reading to do if you want to.
Can you go back to the beginning?
Can you literally, if you were to subscribe and say, I'd like to subscribe to all the back numbers, you could get those, could you?
Yes, you can.
Everyone from volume one, issue one, which was 1986, through to the current issue, which is the current issue.
June, July issue 2023.
They're all available on a pen drive.
Right.
They're all available as hard copy issues.
Well, it would be interesting to see how the magazine developed.
And of course, Duncan Rhodes, who I've had on this show in Australia, what a character.
He is the man behind it.
You are the UK armature of it.
Have you been involved with it from the very beginning?
When did you come on board?
Not from the very beginning.
I first was aware of Nexus down in Glastonbury, where I was staying doing a crop circle conference.
And a friend of mine there had a copy of Nexus.
I said, oh, you might like this.
He had a copy of it.
And it had interest me, that particular issue was the car that rans on water.
which I've heard of since then, but at the time I didn't know anything about it at all.
Technology of which has been suppressed, they say.
Well, because of course it can run on water.
I mean, water is H2O, hydrogen and oxygen.
And we've got hydrogen technology not very far from where I live.
The National Physical Laboratory has a hydrogen car, hydrogen vehicle development program, even has a hydrogen petrol station, if that's not a contradiction in terms.
Yeah.
So hydrogen is a perfectly plausible fuel to use to drive a car.
Can you obtain it from water?
Well, that was the article.
I got interested in that.
And I continued with my career.
I used to work for Toyota, the car importers.
And eventually they said, we've seen enough of you.
Bye-bye.
Go do something else.
You did.
And I did.
And I thought, well, if I can deal with cars, I can deal with magazines.
How hard can it be?
So I went out to visit Duncan in Australia.
And he said, well, good on you, mate.
Here's a few magazines to get you started.
See how you get on.
I thought, well, where do you sell magazines?
Oh, news agents.
That's where you sell them.
So I phoned up W.H. Smith and said, I've got a magazine.
Would you sell it?
And they said, who's your distributor?
I said, I am.
They said, no, you're not.
That's when I discovered how magazines are distributed.
There are distributors, there are professional organizations who ensure that a magazine gets from its place of printing, one location, to 30,000 outlets throughout the country that there's a news agent.
It was a steep learning curve, but I got there and we've been on news agents, W.H. Smith and so on, for over 20 years now, 25 years.
And as they say, the rest is just history.
The rest is history, and we've been there and we still maintain a very enthusiastic subscription base and enthusiastic readership.
So anybody who wants to find out a little bit more about what could be happening, what has been happening, because we cover history, hidden history, hence my interest in ancient Egypt.
We cover future science and hence my interest in the future scientific developments which are going on at the moment.
Whether it's cars that run on water, whether it's satellites in space, whether it's humans landing on the moon, it's all future science.
We cover that.
We cover alternative health.
In the current issue, we've got an interesting article on COVID-19.
Smallpox deja vu is what happened.
It's the whole gamut.
The whole gamut.
And we would also do book reviews of appropriate books for Nexus readers.
And Duncan's editorial each issue is also a very interesting read.
It's just a single page.
He just gives us his views on what's going on in the world, what's happening, how Nexus is dealing with it.
And there's also, for anybody who wants a more online resource, is Nexusnewsfeed.com.
Nexusfeed.
You keep sending me snippets from that, Marcus.
Hey, Marcus, listen, I think we've broken a time record here, and I'm pleased that we did.
Thank you very much.
Stay cool in this incredible heat.
I'll just remind my listener that we've done this conversation.
It's not the hottest that it's been in the last 12 months, but it's certainly been damned hot here.
I'm sitting here in a pair of shorts, and I'm going to go and have a cold drink after this.
But Marcus, thank you for being my friend for 20 odd years.
And I hope we talk again soon.
It's been my privilege to be alongside you for some of that journey.
Thank you.
Oh, journey, it has been.
I remember the very first time you appeared on The Unexplained on the radio in its first incarnation.
I think it was 2004.
And you gave me a lot to think about.
I came out of the studio.
We'd finished the show.
My producer then Dave said, Marcus Allen, wasn't he great?
And it was the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
Thanks, Marcus, very much.
That's great.
Thank you, Howard.
My thanks to Marcus Allen.
If you want to be fascinated, then please do check out Nexus Magazine, wherever in the world you happen to be.
More great guests in the pipeline here at the Home of the Unexplained.
So until we meet again, my name is Howard Hughes.
In the sunshine and the heat, this has been the Unexplained Online.
And please, whatever you do, stay safe, stay calm, and above all, please stay in touch.
Thank you very much.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection